At 06:45 PM 2/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Richard Keene wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the Stefansson study done about the turn of the century when the
>> 'normal' diet
>> was horrible?  They may have 'thrived' relative to the normal
>> population.
>
>The study was done from Feb. 1928 to Feb. 1929.  Even then the
>scientist who studied them recognized that a negative calcium
>balance was not a good thing, over the long haul.

People really should take a look at the study for themselves.  Though
I believe few would argue that a negative calcium balance is not a good
thing, the scientist that published the paper say, "No evidence was
obtained whcih indicated that the loss of calcium from the body was in
any way serious."  In fact, roentgenograms of the hands showed no
differences with respect others not on the diet and showed no
"rarefication."  They suggest that the loss of calcium may not have
continued when they ate the meat from the bone.  In any event, the
negative result for bone loss seems more persuasive than the methods
for determining calcium balance.  As was true for years in estimating
nitrogen balance, the methods of estimating calcium balance at that
time may be in error.

The three or four papers that I have read from these papers conclude that
the men were no worse for wear and remained in excellent health.  They
did record the high cholesterol, calcium balance, and other slight anomolies
that they considered of little consequence.  You seem to be particularly
"cholestrophobic" and this seems to color your reading of the studies.
People must be critical and scrutinize the papers that support or attack
their hypotheses.  You would do well to understand the science behind
some of the conclusions that you often report out of context or without
various caveats.

<snip!>
>Todd Moody
>[log in to unmask]

Wade Reeser
[log in to unmask]